Society Annual Return Alberta 2003: Fill & Download for Free

I would tell you to get ready for the new age psycho-babble, but it’s already here.The Big Bang happened everywhere….ooooohhhhhmmmm….The Big Bang happened anywhere….ooooohhhhhmmmm….Just turn off your mind and don’t ask questions….. ignorance is bliss…be happy….don’t think.Sorry, I choose not to be brain washed.According to NASA’s COBE and WMAP satellites and the European Space Agency’s PLANCK satellite, there IS A CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE.AND NO, THE UNIVERSE IS NOT SAME IN ALL DIRECTIONS. This is how we “know” where the center is.The engine of construction described by the Big Bang is temperature variations in the young universe. These variations supposedly allow matter to clump together and form structure.So we decided to study these variations here is what we found -Lawrence Krauss, PhD is a Professor of Theoretical Physics at Arizona State and arguably the loudest spokesperson for Atheism on the planet. He states -But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERORather than admit what they had discovered, NASA tried to prove the WMAP satellite was broken. quote –So perplexing is the axis of evil that Hinshaw and WMAP's principal investigator, Chuck Bennett, have obtained a grant for a five-year examination of the WMAP data. They hope to explore the possibilities that the WMAP instrument was in error, or that something else went wrong. "There's no question there's stuff that looks unusual," says Bennett.We will have to wait and see whether the study reveals the axis of evil to be a cosmic mirage, or shows the big bang model to be in serious trouble.The Universe: The new Axis of EvilAfter about 10 years of failed attacks on the WMAP data, the scientists hoped that the European Space Agency's PLANCK Satellite would finally discredit the data.Here's what they found -"Why characteristics of the CMB should relate to our solar system is not understood. ... I was explicitly told not to say anything about God in this talk "which I've just violated," Efstathiou said half-jokingly.Planck probe's cosmic 'baby picture' revises universe's vital statisticsGeorge Efstathiou, Ph.D. is a Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge and director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology.Here are the academic credentials of the people you just heard from, so if you have a problem with what they said take it up with them, not me.Ohhhh….FYI, there are FIVE OTHER INDEPENDENT ASTRONOMICAL MEASUREMENTS WHICH ALSO CONFIRM THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE.New Scientist -From the rotation of galaxies to cosmic expansion everything points in one direction. If only we knew whyThe universe lines up along the ‘axis of evil’. Coincidence?Lawrence Krauss -Director, Origins Initiative,Foundation Professor,School of Earth and Space Exploration, Department of Physics,Co-Director, Cosmology Initiativeand Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in ScienceMajor Awards1984 First Prize Award, Gravity Research Foundation1986 Presidential Young Investigator Award1997 Glover Award for Distinction in Physics Achievement and Physics Education, Dickenson College, PA.2000Award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Citation: For global impact as a science communicator and the ability to maintain an active science career while writing several books about physics for the general public.2001 Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize, American Physical Society. Citation: For outstanding contributions to the understanding of the early universe, and extraordinary achievement in communicating the essence of physical science to the general public.2001 Andrew R. Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics. Citation: To Professor Lawrence Krauss for excellence in the interpretation of physics to the public through numerous newspaper and magazine articles, books, lectures, and television productions. Krauss is especially commended for his communication of sound scientific literacy through timely opinion pieces and books, and for his efforts to address incorrect popular interpretations of science disseminated in the mass media.2002 American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award for Atom, An Odyssey from the Big Bang to Life on Earth and Beyond2003 Humanism Award, Free Inquirers of Northeast Ohio2004 Oersted Medal, American Association of Physics Teachers.2004 Northern Ohio Live Award of Achievement: Science and Technology2005 Joseph A. Burton Forum Award, American Physical Society, Citation: For major contributions in defending science in the schools through his efforts in combating the opponents of teaching evolution, and for continuing to enhance the public understanding of contemporary physics2009 Center for Inquiry World Congress Award for Scholarship in the Public Interest.2009 Friend of Darwin Award, National Center for Science Education2009 Helen Sawyer Hogg Prize of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada and the Astronomical Society of Canada2012 National Science Board 2012 Public Service Award2013 Roma Award Urbs Universalis2014 Academia Film Olomouc award for Outstanding Communication of Science2014 Gravity Research Foundation Essay Award2015 American Humanist Association Humanist of the Year2016 Richard Dawkins AwardOther Honors (since 1977)1977 Senate Graduating Medal, Carleton University1977-1981 N.R.C. Postgraduate Scholarship1982-1985 Junior Fellow, Harvard Society of Fellows1982-83 N.S.E.R.C.Fellowship1988 Junior Faculty Fellowship,Yale Unversity1988 Senior Faculty Fellowship, Yale University1988 Nesbitt Lecturer, Carleton University1989 Gravity Research Foundation Prize Award1990 Named Sigma-Xi National Lecturer (1991-92)1990 Named to "International Leaders in Achievement"1991 Gravity Research Foundation Prize Award1993 Named to Ambrose Swasey Chair in Physics1995 Gravity Research Foundation Prize Award1996 Innaugural Distinguish Scientist Lecturer for Young People, Ohio Aerospace Institute1996 Innaugural Distinguished Physics Lecturer, University of Minnesota1996 Ohio Achievement Award Selection, Northern Ohio Live Magazine1997 Hays Lecturer, Oberlin College1997 Great Poets League of Cleveland Honoree 19971998 Cleveland Magazine, 50 Most Interesting People of the Year Award1997-8 University School-Seelbach Visiting Chair1998 American Physical Society Centennial Lecturer1998 Henry Steel Lecturer, Mid America Orthopedic Assn.1998 Commencement Speaker, Hiram College1998 13th Annual Frank G. and Jean M. Chesley Lectureship, Carleton College1998 Herzfeld Lecturer, Catholic University1999 Fellow, American Physical Society1999- Board of Directors, Physics Entrepeneurship Program.1999 Gravity Research Foundation Prize Award1999 Moti Lal Rustgi Memorial Lecturer, SUNY Buffalo1999 Hendrik de Waard Foundation Lecturer, Groningen, Netherlands2000 Maurer Memorial Lecturer, University of Arkansas2000 Vanden Miles Lecturer, Wayne State University2000 Kallen Lecturer, University of Lund, Sweden.2000 Benedum Lecturer, University of West Virginia2000 Great Minds Lecturer, Illinois Math and Science Academy, Aurora IL2000 Soloist, Holst, The Planets, with The Cleveland Orchestra2001 Rochester Lecturer, University of Durham, UK2001 Isaac Asimov Memorial Panelist, American Museum of Natural History, NY2001 Rorschach Lecturer, Rice University2001 Shell Lecturer, National Assoc. of Science Teachers2001 Invited Witness, U.S. House Committee on Science, Session on the Future of Space Exploration2001 Malstrom Lecturer, Hamline University, Minnesota2001 Morgan Lecturer, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth Texas2001 Timothy J. OLeary Distinguished Scientist Lecturer, Gonzaga University2001 Presidential Inauguration Keynote Speaker Clark University2001 Campbell Lecturer, Society of Pediatric Urology2001 Ernest Orlando Lawrence Centenary Lecturer, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory2001 Fermi Centennial Lecturer, Fermilab2001 Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science2002 Knight Fellow, Western Reserve Academy2002 Friedman Lecturer, Penn State University2002 Milton Lecturer, Syracuse University2002 Chancellor’s Lecturer, Vanderbilt University2002 Fellow, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal2003 Waynick Lecturer, Penn State University2003 Donald Ross Hamilton Lecturer, Princeton University2003 Woods Lecturer, Westminster College, PA2003 New Frontiers in Information Sciences Distinguished Lecturer, Air Force Research Laboratory, Rome NY2003 Commencement Speaker, Carleton University2003 Five Colleges Lecturer, U Mass. Amherst2003 William Mahoney Lecturer, U. Mass Amherst2003 Presidential Lecturer, Clark University2004 Joe Barnhart Lecturer, Coastal Bend College, TX2004 Constance Wilson Distinguished Lecturer, Berry College, GA2004 Maurice and Yetta Glicksman Commencement Lecturer, Brown University2004 Likover Lecturer, American Civil Liberties Union.2004 Samuel Newton Taylor Lecturer, Goucher College2005 Hooker Professor and Lecturer, McMaster University2005 Rudin Distinguished Scholar Lecturer, Marymount College2005 First Annual Mel Oakes Distinguished Undergraduate Lecturer, UT. Austin2005 World Year of Physics Lecturer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory2005 Benson Lecturer, Miami University2005 IBM Yorktown Heights Visions Lecturer2005 NASA Huntsville, World Year of Physics Lecturer2005 Sigma Pi Sigma Lecturer, Wright State University2005 Crump Lecturer, St. Andrews School2005 Presidential Lecturer, University of Tulsa2005 IBM Lecturer, Wittenberg University2005 World Year of Physics Lecturer, Severance Hall2006 Michigan State Science Teacher’s Distinguished Lecturer2007-8 Phi Beta Kappa National Visiting Scholar2006- Board of Sponsors, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists2006 Terry Lectureship, Science and Religion, Yale University2007 Distinguished Scientist Lecture, Brookhaven National Laboratory2007 Concordia University Distinguished Scientist Lecturer2007 Gravity Research Foundation Prize Award2007 Michelson Centenary Lecturer, US Naval Academy.2007 Inaugural Beyond Institute Lecturer, Arizona State University2008 Centennial Lecturer, University of Arkansas2008 Bradley Lecturer, American Enterprise Institute2008 2008 Michigan State University Distinguished Lecturer2009 National Lecturer, Australian National Science Week2010 Todd Lecturer, Butler University2010 Woods Lecturer, Norwich University.2010 Smith Lecturer, Davidson College2010 Distinguished University Lecturer, U. Alberta, Edmonton2010- Distinguished Visiting Professor, Australian National University2011 James and Jean Davis Prestige Visiting Fellow, Otaga University2011 Miegunyah Distinguished Visiting Fellowship, University of Melbourne2012 Irving K. Barber Lecture, University of British Columbia2012 The Littleton-Franklin Lecture, Auburn University2012 Institute of Physics Lecturer, Hobart Tasmania2012 Math for America Lecturer, UCSD2013 Distinguished Lecturer Award, Medical Health Physics Society2013 Distinguished Lecturer, Williams College2013 Dean’s Distinguished Lecturer, University of Texas at Austin2013 Distinguished Dean’s Lecturer, Radcliffe College2013 Distinguished Lecturer, University of New Orleans2013 Asimov Panelist, AMNH2013 Gordon Tomkins Lecture, UC San Francisco2013 Laureate of International Academy of Humanism2014 Distinguished Lecturer, University of Wisconsin - Madison2014 Allele Lecturer, University of Alabama2014 Michael West Lecturer, Queen's University Belfast2015 Fetzer Memorial Lecture, Nebraska Wesleyan UniversityGeorge EfstathiouGeorge Efstathiou holds the Professor of Astrophysics (1909) at the University of Cambridge. He received his B.A. in Physics from Keble College, Oxford University in 1976, and his Ph.D. in Astronomy from Durham University in 1979. His first postdoctoral appointment was at the Department of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley. He spent the next eight years at the Institute for Astronomy at Cambridge, beginning as a Postdoctoral Research Assistant and eventually becoming Assistant Director of Research. In 1988, Efstathiou was appointed to the Savilian Chair of Astronomy at Oxford University, where he served as Head of Astrophysics until 1994. He returned to Cambridge in 1997 and has served as Director of the Institute of Astronomy since 2004. He was appointed as the first Director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at Cambridge from 2008 - 2013.Professor Efstathiou has received several prizes for his research including the 1990 Maxwell Medal and Prize of the Institute of Physics, the 1990 Vainu Bappu Prize of the Astronomical Society of India, the 1994 Astrophysics Prize of the Bodossaki Foundation, the 2005 American Institute of Physics Heineman Prize for Astronomy (shared with his long-term collaborator Simon White), 2011 the Gruber Cosmology Prize (jointly awarded with Marc Davis, Carlos Frenk and Simon White) and the 2013 Nemitsas Prize in Physics.Professor Efstathiou has wide interests in theoretical and observational cosmology and has contributed to studies of large-scale structure in the Universe, galaxy formation, dark energy and the cosmic microwave background radiation. He is a member of the Science Team for the European Space Agency Planck Satellite, launched in May 2009, which is mapping the temperature and polarization anisotropies of the cosmic microwave backround to unprecedented precision.

"An Yll Wynde That Blowth No Man To Good"“America has the best wind resources in the world. Not harvesting America’s wind would be like going to Saudi Arabia and not drilling for oil.” Ditlev Engel, Chief Executive of Vestas Wind SystemsOf all renewable energy, the most contentious is wind. Wind stirs most passion and documentaries are made of suffering communities at war with each other lying in the shadow of the big blades. ‘Big wind’ companies are made to sound as evil as ‘big oil’ in their calculated pursuit of profits. I know people living north of London in the UK, who are actively moving to cancel wind farm installations on the grounds of fears of wind turbine syndrome (WTS)[i] a serious health problem described by people who live close to the towering structures.The Caithness Windfarm Information Forum (CWIF)[ii] produces a list of the frequency of all wind turbine related accidents globally confirmed by press reports. Renewable UK[iii] also follow such data with reports on such topics as:Radar and aviation securityScenery despoliationProperty pricesHealth Impacts from aerodynamic noise and shadow flickerThe CWIF reports find that blade failure is the most common problem that causes accidents with fire a close second and poor maintenance coming third. They found that globally, total accidents since the 1970’s numbered 1,549, a level that is growing each year along with the number of installed wind turbines. Fatal accidents also are rising but at a much lower level with a total of 146 deaths in 108 accidents since 1970, with 14 in 2011 but more in 2012.Blade Failure – Up to 2012 there are 289 incidents with some cases of parts of blades being thrown up to a mile away from the turbine hub. In Germany, parts of blades have penetrated roofs and walls of nearby buildings. ‘Renewable UK’ reported 1,500 accidents in the UK alone over the five years up to 2011 with some deaths and serious injuries. Unless there is an injury, there is no requirement for an incident to be reported. The Wind industry plays down the incidents. In 2006 part of a wind turbine blade snapped off its hub and crashed into a field in high winds. The operator, Cumbria Wind Farms said, “Nothing like this has happened there before”, but they forgot to mention that in fact one month after the park opened in 1993, a similar accident had occurred. A similar situation occurred with Scottish Power with a blade separation event in Whitelee. Three bladed wind turbine blades are secured only on one end, unlike many vertical and arguably safer VAWT wind turbine designs. The Risø National Laboratory[iv] in Denmark reported 15 turbine collapses in the three years from 2005 to 2008.Fire – can occur due to gearbox lubrication failure or friction within the nacelle or when bearings fail. 231 incidents of fire have been reported. Most fire is restricted to the turbine nacelle but out of reach of firemen on the ground. In dry weather there is a danger of wildfire. Wind turbines are also a magnet for lightning strikes which can ignite flammable blade resins. In October 2013 a crew of 4 mechanics were working for a service company that was charged with maintaining the 13 turbines at Deltawind’s Piet de Wit wind farm in the Netherlands. They were in a gondola next to the nacelle of a Vestas V-66, 1.75 MW turbine, when a fire likely caused by a short circuit blocked the only escape to the stairs in the shaft. Two men jumped through flames to reach the stairs and saved themselves, while the two remaining men, only 19 and 21 years of age were trapped and died. One jumped from the tower and the other was burned.[v]Structural failure – 148 instances mainly of collapsing turbines in storms but also including component failure. This is a very expensive form of failure but mostly at arm’s length from human beings.Ice Throw – In icing conditions, wind turbines can fling a loose piece of ice a considerable distance, but as with aircraft wings, the performance of the turbine blade deteriorates as ice builds up. Turbines are equipped to detect imbalances caused by ice and normally shut down. The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) agency, established by President Nixon in 1970, detailed requirements for wind turbine workers to observe when in icing conditions. Complaints about ice are common and the fear is that rotating blades in melting conditions will fling heavy chunks of damaging and lethal ice long distances. This is alleged to have happened in Whittlesey in England, where lumps of ice two feet long were flung from a 410 foot wind turbine, through the air, finally colliding with a carpet showroom and car park. Residents had the offending turbine shut down. A report by GE’s wind turbine division[vi] did alert users that ice chunks can indeed be flung several hundred yards. A Swiss study[vii] made in a ski resort in 2007 showed that up to 5% of the ice on a turbine was able to travel 260 feet from the turbine. As experience grows with wind farms the ability to protect the community that lives near them improves. Ice is thrown a maximum of 400 feet and this is the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. A 2003 report cited 880 events between 1990 and 2003 alone and another report published in 2005 described 94 incidents. Further reports in 2006 reported 27 further incidents.Transportation of wind turbine components to the installation site – 147 incidents since 1970 including a house being rammed through by a turbine tower section in Germany, a utility pole being knocked through a restaurant and a turbine section falling off in a tunnel. In one case a $75 million barge was lost at sea with expensive turbine sections. Transportation is the largest cause of public fatalities including the Brazilian bus disaster mentioned above. In a single incident in Brazil in March of 2012, a bus driver was behind a slow truck, hoping to overtake. He was indicating and thought the truck ahead of him was moving over to let him pass. He gunned the accelerator to overtake only to suddenly find himself faced with a 40 ton wind tower section being transported in the oncoming lane. It sheared off the left side of the bus, driver included. 14 passengers and the driver died on the spot and two more died later[viii].Bird Deaths –"When you look at a wind turbine, you can find the bird carcasses and count them. With a coal-fired power plant, you can't count the carcasses, but it's going to kill a lot more birds." - John Flicker, National Audubon Society, president.Sibley and Monroe estimated that there are about 9,703 species of birds[ix]. They are found on all major land masses and over the oceans. Total populations are difficult to estimate due to seasonal fluctuations in populations but Sibley & Monroe accepted that there are between 100 and 200 billion adult birds in the world. Kevin Gaston and Tim Blackburn[x] doubled that estimate with 200 to 400 billion. Birds are killed by wind turbines and solar installations, but it turns out that the numbers of birds already killed by buildings, high tension lines, vehicles, cats and pesticides are so much greater that there is clearly a perception twist, which is likely deliberate, going on here. This is not to say that we should be complacent about bird deaths. It’s a universally accepted fact that all parties are against any kind of animal mortality as a result of our energy activities. The presentation of it though, ought to be based on the factual wider context of bird deaths from other causes. The Altamont pass was one of the first locations in the US preserved for wind power due to the excellent winds funneled by the hills there. At the time bird deaths were not on the minds of the responsible individuals who created this wind resource.Even institutions who are protective of birds, the National Audubon Society, the US Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wildlife Society all have commissioned studies that result in the same conclusions afforded by the following chart. Bird deaths by wind turbines do not remotely compare with the impact of cats, cars, power lines or buildings. As wind power increases its penetration however, its currently small impact on birds will grow less than proportionately as operators learn how to avoid avian mortality by siting, colors on blades, kick in speeds and other methods.BIRD DEATHS FROM DIFFERENT CAUSESFigure 9: Bird deaths from different causes, showing that wind turbines are the least of threats among many. Source Bloomberg New Energy Finance, US Forestry Service.Perception of bird deaths can halt wind turbine installations during the public planning phase and then effective resistance can scuttle installation plans. It turns out though, that wind turbines are responsible for only 1 in every 10,000 causes of bird deaths.Small birds are killed in the billions by housecats while wind turbine casualties tend to be relatively larger bird species. Bigger birds, normally not the direct target of a housecat, like the protected Bald Eagles and other birds of prey, are more likely to be killed by a wind turbine than by a cat. Balanced against this has to be the effect of coal and oil on birds mentioned in the earlier solar report. Many energy technologies apparently are bad for birds, but wind and solar are far from being the worst culprits. In 2013 a study by Smallwood indicated that the estimates of wind turbine bird deaths may be understated for three reasons. Estimates of bird deaths by wind turbines depended on counting carcasses found under the turbines. It was entirely possible that searches were done in less than efficient ways and in inadequate search radiuses. Additionally carcasses could easily be removed by predators and his bird death estimate was 573,000, slightly higher than others.[xi]A 2005 study by the USDA Forest Service, was an early indication that wind turbines were a very small impact on overall bird populations.[xii] Then the National Audubon Society produced a study[xiii], funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in September, 2014 which took seven years to finish and which looked closely at 588 of the total 800 species of bird found in North America. 314 of these species are threatened in some way with a loss of environment by the end of the century. Climate change (therefore CONG) is blamed for effectively potentially destroying the ecosystem for 28 species. This data is not included in the chart above in Figure 9. The Bald Eagle and state mascots are at serious risk due to climate change which reduces the bird’s range and alters the lifecycle of their food sources. Bird mortality from fossil fuel pollution and climate change represents a far higher risk than wind turbines as far as the Audubon Society is concerned.In 1918, the US Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), a legislation aimed at protecting populations of over 1,000 species of birds from hunting or other forms of harm. It put in place penalties for causing damage to this part of the US environment. This may have been partly in response to the extinction by humans of the passenger pigeon, which had been the commonest bird in America, ranging in flocks of billions of individuals, but which had become completely extinct by 1914 after being exhaustively hunted for its meat and feathers. Martha, the world’s last passenger pigeon died at the age of 29, on September 1, 1914 at the Cincinnati Zoo. She had been there all her life. She was named after President Washington’s wife and within minutes of her death she was on the way to the Smithsonian museum in Washington inside a 300lb block of ice, where Nelson Wood, the Smithsonian taxidermist preserved her. Twice she left the Smithsonian, once to attend a conservation event in San Diego in 1974 and then a return visit to Cincinnatti Zoo to name a building in her honor. For both trips she travelled by plane in a box in first class with her own flight attendant.[xiv]Birds are famously victims of the huge wind turbine blades. This is certainly true and although bird fatalities from the house cat, vehicles and building windows account for literally millions or billions more, it doesn’t excuse the wind turbine’s effects impact. At least lip service is done to relocate turbines out of birds’ migration paths. Also, most song birds migrate flying at a height of 2,000 to 4,000 feet, well above the tallest wind turbines, at least so far. There is a very disturbing YouTube video of a large, elegant bird of prey being struck down by such a rotating blade[xv]. In an awful European case there was the death of a rare swift, the White-throated Needletail, the world’s fastest flying bird. The poor exhausted creature was spotted by a group of 30 birdwatchers who had made a special trip to the isle of Harris in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. The sighting was only the 9time that the bird had been seen since 1846, in Essex. The last time it had been seen at all was 1991. The assembled enthusiasts assembled in the appropriate location and waited for hours before being rewarded by sighting the bird. They were summarily horrified to see the rare bird, which had flown all the way from Australia, knocked down and killed by the rotating blade of a wind turbine.[xvi]The MBTA has been invoked several times to improve conditions for migratory bird species. Between 2004 and 2009 in Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, just 85, unprotected, migratory birds were deemed to have died due to exposure to oil and gas facilities owned by Exxon Mobil. The Justice Department fined the company $600,000 or about $7,000 for each bird killed. Exxon pleaded guilty and cooperated with the department spending a further $2.5 million to clean up the sites. It turned out that the fine was equal to twenty minutes of Exxon’s profits, based on $8.6 billion earnings for the first half of 2009[xvii]. Other fossil fuel companies have been fined. BP paid $100 million for the impact of its 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill on migratory birds. Pacificorp, which operates coal fired power stations, paid $500,000 in 2009 after 232 eagles along power distribution lines between its substations were found to have been electrocuted.[xviii]Wind farms started to kill birds on a regular basis although the MBTA was rarely invoked, prompting calls of hypocrisy against those claiming that wind was an environmental solution. Wind farms have been fined for killing birds too, however. Duke Energy was fined $1 million for the deaths of 14 eagles and 149 other birds, including hawks, blackbirds, wrens and sparrows, between 2009 and 2013. Duke were also called upon to restore and do community service (how do you ask a large utility to do that!) and were placed on 5 years of probation while they put together an environmental compliance plan to prevent bird deaths. Interestingly, Duke then applied for a permit to kill eagles, to help provide a context within which the system can absorb the inevitability of bird deaths. Another group, the Wind Capital Group applied for such a license only to be embroiled in an argument over its granting, by the Osage Nation in opposition. Many applications for this license have been filed. Environmentalists complain bitterly when President Obama’s administration, eager for non-polluting wind power, announced a new federal rule that allows wind farms to lawfully kill birds of prey.There is some evidence that birds change their behavior when in the presence of wind farms. Lowther in 1998 discovered that studying a 22 turbine wind farm in Wales, UK, no birds were killed by the turbine and in fact they were seen to have shifted their activity to a different location. Some wind farms have no bird fatalities at all. A study[xix] published in the Journal of Applied Ecology by Pawel Plonczkier and Ian Simms monitored migrating flocks of pink-footed geese using radar as they returned during migration to the shores of Lincolnshire, UK. Monitoring the movement of the birds over 4 years from 2007 to 2010, established that two new wind farms effectively caused the geese to change their flight paths. The proportion of goose flocks flying outside the wind farm locations climbed from 52% to 81% in this time and even geese flying through the windfarm area had increased their altitude to climb above the turbines.An Australian online group called RenewEconomy had an article which summarizes the whole bird situation quite nicely called “Want to save 70 million birds a year? Build more wind farms”, drawing attention to the impact of CONG on birds. Replacing all fossil fuel worldwide, it says, would save about 70 million birds a year establishing wind farms as a strong net benefit for birds. Author Mike Bernard[xx] explains that wind farms kill less than 0.0001 percent of birds killed by human activities annually out of a total 1.5% of human caused mortality.Bats and BarotraumaThe other species which more recently became synonymous with death by wind turbine blade is bats. Most of the damage is done to migratory bat species in the autumn. Bats are famously known for their ability to echo locate hard objects in their local environment, such as tree branches or cave walls, and even insects on the wing while they are feeding. They can actually detect moving objects better than stationary objects so the high death rate from wind turbine blades was puzzling. Several explanations were proposed but 90% of the bat fatalities involved internal hemorrhaging just as might be expected with damage caused by sudden air pressure changes. Birds have a more resistant respiratory anatomy and are killed by being hit by the blades, whereas the bats do avoid the blades, but come so close that pressure changes around the blades cause the damage to their lungs. The mammals have larger, flexible lungs and hearts. Birds have compact, rigid lungs with very strong pulmonary capillaries which can resist the higher pressure changes, even though the blood/gas barriers are thinner than the bats. Wind turbine blades are moved by the wind. An airfoil on a plane pushes against the wind but a wind turbine blade is moved by the wind. In either case, the airfoil cross section causes significant differences in air pressure. The greatest area of low pressure exists at the fast moving (approximately 180 mph) tip of the blade and cascades downwind from the moving blade. A zone of low pressure can cause a bat’s lungs to expand causing tissue damage, or barotrauma. A study[xxi] was paid for by fossil fuel companies like Suncor and Shell, but also from wind turbine companies such as TransAlta Wind and Alberta Wind Energy Corporation as well as academic institutions. They found bat bodies from hoary and silver-haired bats killed at a wind farm in south western Alberta, Canada and examined them for internal injuries. Of 188 bat bodies collected, 87 had no external physical injury. Very few bats had external injuries without internal bleeding.In 2012, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory conducted pressure studies[xxii] on mice, which were used because they are a close approximation to bats and discovered that pressures of only 1.4 kilopascals (kPa) were experienced by the bats at the blade tips in 11 mph winds but that it took 30 kPa to cause fatality in mice. There was no suggestion by NREL for an alternative cause of death however. At low windspeeds the pressures are even lower and yet it is at the low speeds that the bats fly which further confuses the issue.Intermittency – When the wind calms, electricity production needs to be backed up by a non-intermittent power source. On May 13th, 2014, Germany experienced 74% of their electricity grid, an astonishing 43.5 gigawatts, successfully supplied by renewable capacity[xxiii]. The world’s fourth largest economy not having to pay for fuel! However, the wind, solar, hydro and biomass generation activities needed to be backed up by over 10 gigawatts of ‘spinning reserve’. While there is no reason why a fossil fuel needs to be chosen to back up the wind, it just happens to be the current case that CONG are the bulk methods most available to make wind and solar intermittency more palatable. The short sighted criticism is that wind doesn’t cut pollution after all but it all depends on which non-intermittent power source is used. Since wind intermittency is mostly offset by the use of fast reacting gas turbines, instead of coal as back-up power or spinning reserve, the impact on emissions can be minor. In the future, sustainable base-load renewable energy can act as spinning reserve. Almost every type of renewable energy can become base load with some tweaks. Solar can go into space. Wind can harvest the energy from almost permanent fast winds at high altitude. Almost all other renewable energy types are already base load anyway, biomass, biofuels, geothermal, hydroelectric etc.Noise – like a propeller, wind turbine blades make a noise in contact with the air. Not surprisingly this particular complaint turns out to be very much less annoying than it at first appears. It turns out that noise from other sources is louder and more persistent. Traffic, aircraft, wind itself, household noises, industry, farming etc. When windfarms are going through the public planning stage, it’s quite likely that the developer will ask local residents to sign a waiver for any noise irritation and give them an incentive to do so. They suggest local people accept this $5,000 check and if the turbines happen to be noisy, they have no recourse. One of many states that has addressed this issue is Oregon where a state noise ordinance reflects a specific regulation restricting noise from wind turbines. The law here, allows for noise to exceed what is considered an area’s ambient noise level by a given amount, often the subject of controversy itself. Interestingly in Oregon’s case the law that limits turbine noise is an evolution from one that once enforced industrial noise conditions and was part of the Department of Environmental Quality which was closed down in 1991, before wind power became a state priority.An 85 page study was conducted on the subject in 2009 for the Canadian Wind Energy Association and the American Wind Energy Association. The selected panel concluded that wind turbines do not make people ill because of noise. They did say the swooshing sound of blades could be irritating. Such a conclusion from such a source is hardly surprising, although the study panel members, a doctor, a vibration and acoustics expert from the UK, a professor of audiology and a biological engineer, all claimed to have been at arm’s length and totally able to design the study themselves.Eighteen studies were done between 2003 and 2014, not one of them saying there was any evidence that wind turbines did any harm at all. In 1918 there was a medical condition that at the time was not acknowledged to be real. It was a reaction to the hell of fighting on the First World War front often caused by the close impact of exploding shells. In fact it was called ‘shellshock’. The military term for it was cowardice or desertion and many otherwise perfectly good people were shot at dawn for supposedly letting the side down. In August of 2006, the UK Defense Secretary published posthumous pardons for 306 soldiers, four of whom were only 17, who were executed this way.[xxiv] I don’t think that wind turbine syndrome will one day be recognized as a real complaint, but I wouldn’t like to live close enough to a turbine to experience long term noise effects either.In February of 2015, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) completed a comprehensive study[xxv] on the effects of wind turbines and farms on people who live further than 1,500 meters from the closest turbine. The study identified over 4,000 international papers on the subject of which only 13 suggested a possible relationship between the wind turbine and human health. They determined that the body of direct evidence was small and of poor quality but admitted it was a complex subject as much of it is subjective opinion. NHMRC concluded there is no consistent evidence that wind farms cause adverse health effects in humans. The concern over the topic led them to recommend specific research to produce a body of high quality observations of those who live within 1,500 meters of wind farms.Resistance to Offshore WindFarmsCape Wind is the name of an offshore windfarm project that has been moving forward at a glacial pace and while it appeared positive for the start of construction as of the end of 2014, just a few months later, the cycle of delays has begun once again. There has been no offshore wind in the Americas, while many large installations have been completed in Europe. The UK has staked part of its energy future on very large offshore wind farms because of the huge reserve of energy there. It hopes to generate 18 gigawatts by 2020 and double that again by 2030.[xxvi]There is a paradox attached to the location of one of America’s most affluent playgrounds, Cape Cod. White warriors of the US clean energy army, people who in any other circumstance would do their best for renewable energy, are here arrayed against the installation of the first offshore wind turbine farm in America because of a fierce determination not to despoil their little plot of nature. This resistance to installation of something new is called “Not in My Back Yard” (NIMBY). Cape Wind Associates has tenaciously hung on to the goal of installing 130, 400 foot tall turbines, which were originally supposed to be up and running by 2006. Opposition has been fierce. An entity called ‘The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound’ has raised millions and paid staff members and a public relations firm in Washington. It has purchased radio, newspaper and TV time and has distributed flyers. It has also engaged the support of wealthy landowners in the region such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Walter Cronkite who lent his distinctive, patriarchal, trusted voice to a radio advertisements for the group.Many Cape Cod beach homes are as much as 7 miles from the proposed site, Horseshoe Shoal. At that distance the relative size of the giant turbines is less than that of a dime held at arm’s length. The indigenous hold-outs were being marginalized and the project was closer than ever to going ahead as of the end of 2014. Today though it is tied down again in delaying lawsuits which seem to never end. The site is in federal waters not subject to the same zoning laws as land based projects. Private money is ready to be put up to pay the expected $750 million equity money. Complainants like these are well funded, whereas the Cape would benefit hugely over two decades at least of clean energy supply for a very reasonable cost. Any foundations placed offshore additionally act as a wildlife magnet, creating the equivalent of an artificial reef teeming with life. There are artificial reef projects achieving this in many locations along the world’s coastlines using old ships, planes and other relics.[xxvii][i] Wind energy is considered a disaster responding to the hoax of climate change in this vociferous website which of course also discusses wind turbine syndrome. Available at: http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/wind-turbine-syndrome/what-is-wind-turbine-syndrome/[ii] The Caithness Windfarm Information Forum. Available at: http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/[iii] RenewableUK. A leading renewable energy trade association. Available at: http://www.renewableuk.com/en/events/conferences-and-exhibitions/renewableuk-2015/[iv] Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy. Available at: http://orbit.dtu.dk/en/organisations/risoe-national-laboratory-for-sustainable-energy%2869f3623e-9f3f-48aa-8b46-4b4fb2abab7f%29.html[v] Available at: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3cd_1383772851#Opj3eWpLL6Co282t.99[vi] David Wahl, Philippe Giguere. Ice Shedding and Ice Throw – Risk and Mitigation. Wind Application Engineering. GE Energy. Available at: http://www.cbuilding.org/sites/cbi.drupalconnect.com/files/ger4262.pdf[vii] Cattin et al. Wind Turbine Ice Throw Studies in the Swiss Alps. EWEC 2007. Based on studies of a 600 kW Enercon E-40 at 2,300 mASL in Swiss Alps[viii] Summary of Wind Turbine Accident Data to 30 September 2014. PDF. Caithness Windfarm Information Forum.[ix] Sibley and Monroe. 1992.[x] Kevin J. Gaston and Tim M. Blackburn. April 1997. How many birds are there? Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1018341530497[xi] K. Shawn Smallwood, “Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects”, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26 Mar. 2013. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.260/pdf[xii] Wallace P. Erickson, Gregory D. Johnson and David P. Young Jr. A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortality from Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions. USDA Forest Service. PSW-GTR-191. 2005. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/1029-1042.pdf[xiii] Erickson WP, Wolfe MM, Bay KJ, Johnson DH, Gehring JL (2014) A Comprehensive Analysis of Small-Passerine Fatalities from Collision with Turbines at Wind Energy Facilities. PLoS ONE 9(9): e107491. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107491[xiv] Smithsonian article on Martha, the last passenger pidgeon. Available at: http://www.mnh.si.edu/onehundredyears/featured_objects/martha2.html[xv] Bald Eagle seriously injured by wind turbine. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwVz5hdAMGU[xvi] Rare swift killed by Scottish wind turbine. Available at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/birdwatchers-see-rare-bird-killed-by-wind-turbine-1-2980240[xvii] Exxon Mobil pleads guilty to bird deaths. Available at: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8322081[xviii] BP and Pacificorp pay fines for killing birds. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-eagle-death-wind-farm-oil-energy-epa-2013-5[xix] Pawel Plonczkier and Ian C. Simms. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2012. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02181.x/epdf[xx] Mike Barnard. 10 August, 2012. Want to save 70 million birds a year? Build more wind farms. RenewEconomy. Available at: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/want-to-save-70-million-birds-a-year-build-more-wind-farms-18274[xxi] Erin F. Baerwald, Genevieve H. D’Amours, Brandon J. Klug and Robert M.R. Barclay. Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines.[xxii] “NREL Study Finds Barotrauma Not Guilty”, November 27, 2012. Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/news/2013/2149.html[xxiii] Germany has 74% of its power supplied by renewable energy. 2014. Available at: http://gas2.org/2014/05/27/for-one-hour-germany-was-powered-by-74-renewables/[xxiv] Posthumous pardons of First World War shellshock victims. Available on: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1526437/Pardoned-the-306-soldiers-shot-at-dawn-for-cowardice.html[xxv] Information Paper: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health. February 2015. PDF. National Health and Medical Research Council. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh57a_information_paper.pdf[xxvi] UK Renewable Energy Roadmap. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48128/2167-uk-renewable-energy-roadmap.pdf[xxvii] Positive environmental impacts of offshore wind farms. European Wind Energy Association. Available at: http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/files/members-area/information-services/offshore/research-notes/120801_Positive_environmental_impacts.pdf

SUMMARYLike so many climate issues the answer to this question is not straight forward as the cause of sea level change is in dispute. The evidence is any rise is too small to matter making alarmist predictions of drowning cities and island refugees just fear mongering.With the long view there is a rough correlation between temperatures and sea level fluctuations. With the long view sea levels are not rising, but continue to fluctuate and decline over the past millions of years.In recent times sea level rise IS SO SMALL IT IS MEASURED IN MM and has not accelerated. Over the past few decades evidence shows it is decelerating. This fear of SLR is surely the greatest hoax of the alarmists, particularly lefty politicians like Al Gore with ridiculous predictions of drowning cities and island refugees that have not happened.My post will look at temperatures as the key variable and explain why the alarmism concern about the earth getting too hot is wrong.Sea level predictions1981 James Hansen, NASA scientist, predicted a global warming of “almost unprecedented magnitude” in the next century that might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. See here.Reality check: Since 1993 (24 years) we have totaled 72 mm (3 inches) of sea level rise instead of the 4 feet that corresponds to one-fourth of a century. The alarming prediction is more than 94% wrong, so far. See here.Florida coastal sea levels are stable with no change contrary to fake media stories.Relative Sea Level Trend8723170 Miami Beach, FloridaEXPORT TO TEXT | EXPORT TO CSV | SAVE IMAGEThe relative sea level trend is 2.39 millimeters/year with a 95% confidenceinterval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years.SEA LEVEL RISE GLOBALLY TOO SMALL TO OBSERVE OR MATTERInternational Journal of Engineering Science Invention ISSN (Online): 2319 – 6734, ISSN (Print): 2319 – 6726 UGC Approved Journal ||Volume 6 Issue 8|| August 2017 || PP. 48-51Sea Level Manipulation*Nils-AxelMörner 1 1 (Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, Sweden) Corresponding Author: Nils-AxelMörnerAbstract:Sea level changes is a key issue in the global warming scenario. It has been widely claimed that sea is rising as a function of the late 20th’s warming pulse. Global tide gauge data sets may vary between +1.7 mm/yr to +0.25 mm/yr depending upon the choice of stations. At numerous individual sites, available tide gauges show variability around a stable zero level. Coastal morphology is a sharp tool in defining ongoing changes in sea level. A general stability has been defined in sites like the Maldives, Goa, Bangladesh and Fiji. In contrast to all those observations, satellite altimetry claim there is a global mean rise in sea level of about 3.0 mm/yr. In this paper, it is claimed that the satellite altimetry values have been “manipulated”. In this situation, it is recommended that we return to the observational facts, which provides global sea level records varying between ±0.0 and +1.0 mm/yr; i.e. values that pose no problems in coastal protection. Keywords: Manipulation, observational facts, satellite altimetry, sea level change, tide gauges --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Submission: 26-07-2017 Date of acceptance: 05-08-2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.ijesi.org/papers/Vol(6)8/Version-1/G0608014851.pdfBewildered Scientists…A Global Warming Crisis Fails To Appear: Sea Level Rise Grinds To A CrawlBy P Gosselin on 2. February 2018Over the past months a spate of scientific papers published show sea level rise has not accelerated like many climate warming scientists warned earlier. The reality is that the rise is far slower than expected, read here and here.Alarmist bedwetting by scientists over sea level rise proving to have been needless. Photo: PIK climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf. Source: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Rahmstorf FTP folder.Scary scenarios aboundThe latest findings glaringly contradict alarmist claims of accelerating sea level rise. For example the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) here wrote sea levels would “likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century”, due to global warming.In 2013 The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) wrote here sea-level rise in this century would likely be 70-120 centimeters by 2100″ (i.e. 7 – 12 mm annually) and that 90 experts in a survey “anticipated a median sea-level rise of 200-300 centimeters by the year 2300” (i.e. on average circa 7 to 10 mm every year).It’s important to note that the above scary figures given above are mostly based on computer simulations, where parameters are simply assumed by the scientists.Evidence in fact points to decelerationUsing these modelled estimates, the globe should now be seeing a rapid acceleration in sea level rise. Yet no evidence of this can be found so far. In fact the real measured data show the opposite is happening: a deceleration in sea level rise is taking place.Instead of the 7 – 12 mm annual sea level rise the PIK projected in 2013, a recent study appearing in the Geophysical Research Letters in April 2017 corrected the satellite measured sea level rise downwards from 3.3 mm annually to just 3.0 mm over the past 24 years – or less than half what PIK models projected.Only 1.5 mm/yearWorse, satellite data measuring sea level have turned out to be far more complex and uncertain than one would wish, and evidence is piling up and showing that satellite data likely have been overstating sea level rise. For example when measuring sea level rise along coastlines (where people actually live)using tide gauges, the rise has even been far slower. Renowned Swedish sea level expert Axel Mörner published a paper in 2017 showing an observed sea level rise rate of only 1.5 – 2.0 mm/year.Second half of the 20th century slower than in the first halfIn another newly published paper by Frederiske et al. 2018 just this year, oceanographers estimate that global sea levels rose at a rate of only 1.42 mm per year between 1958 and 2014. That figure closely coincides with the results of Dr. Simon Holgate from 2007. According to the Holgate study: “The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).”The Holgate result was confirmed by another 2008 paper authored by Jevrejeva et al, which found the fastest sea level rise during the past 300 years was observed between 1920 – 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.In other words: global sea level rise has decelerated since the 1950s.At less than 2 mm annually, sea level is rising at only one sixth of the 12 mm per year rate phttp://notrickszone.com/2018/02/...MIT Climate Scientist: ‘Ordinary People Realize That This Is A Phony Issue’Published on September 12, 2018Written by Climate DepotDr. Richard Lindzen: The time history of such matters as droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and temperature extremes is well recorded by official bodies like NOAA, and display no systematic increase. Indeed, some, like hurricanes, appear to be decreasing. These trends have been documented by R. Pielke, Jr., and even the IPCC has acknowledged the absence of significant associations with warming.The attempt to associate present weather extremes and other matters ranging from obesity to the Syrian Civil War, with climate change is frequently hilarious.Sea levels: “Carefully analyzed tide gauge data shows sea-level increasing about 20 cm per century for at least 2 centuries – with no sign of acceleration to the present. The claim that this increase is accelerating is very peculiar. Tide gauges don’t actually measure sea-level. Rather, they measure the difference between land level and sea level. At many stations, the former is much more important. In order to estimate sea level, one has to restrict oneself to tectonically stable sites. Since 1979 we have been able to measure sea level itself with satellites. However, the accuracy of such measurements depends critically on such factors as the precise shape of the earth. While the satellites show slightly greater rates of sea level rise, the inaccuracy of the measurement renders the difference uncertain. What the proponents of alarm have done is to accept the tide gauge data until 1979, but assume that the satellite data is correct after that date and that the difference in rates constitutes ‘acceleration.’ They then assume acceleration will continue leading to large sea level rises by the end of this century. It is hard to imagine that such illogical arguments would be tolerated in other fields.”“According to the IPCC, models find that there is nothing competitive with man-made climate change, but observations contradict this. The warming from 1919-1939 was almost identical to the warming from 1978-1998. Moreover, there was an almost total slowdown of warming since 1998. Both imply that there is something at least as strong as man-made warming going on.”https://principia-scientific.org/mit-climate-scientist-ordinary-people-realize-that-this-is-a-phony-issue/Tony HellerPublished on 1 Jan 2018SUBSCRIBE 9.4KIn this video I show how the "Union of Concerned Scientists" uses sea level junk science in an effort to obtain donations.NASA Confirms Falling Sea Levels For Two Years Amidst Media Blackout“Sea level has been rising for the last ten thousand years, since the last Ice Age…the question is whether sea level rise is accelerating owing to human caused emissions. It doesn’t look like there is any great acceleration, so far, of sea level rise associated with human warming. These predictions of alarming sea level rise depend on massive melting of the big continental glaciers — Greenland and Antarctica. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing. Greenland shows large multi-decadal variability. …. There is no evidence so far that humans are increasing sea level rise in any kind of a worrying way.” — Dr. Judith Curry, video interview published 9 August 2017Gravity has enormous influence on the oceans by controlling the tides around the world. It is the force of gravity from the moon and sun control the amazing tides. Dr. Khan’s new paper also finds gravity in a different way not climate change is responsible for sea level rise and fall just like the tides coming in and out.Many photos put the lie to predicted large sea level rise - see 100 year photos of Sydney Harbour with no visible change.CO2 Coalition@CO2CoalitionA picture is worth a thousand words! The top image is from "Where the Boys are" from 1960. The other is a recent image of the same beachfront in Ft. Lauderdale. Do you see any dangerous sea-level rise? Of course not!13. Sinking nations predictions1989 Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. As global warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations. See here.Reality check: Tide gauges referenced by GPS at 12 locations in the South Pacific reported variable trends between -1 to +3 mm/year for the 1992-2010 period. See here.The Diego Garcia atoll in the Indian ocean experienced a land area decrease of only 0.92% between 1963 and 2013. See here.The Funafuti atoll has experienced a 7.3% net island area increase between 1897 and 2013. See here.RESEARCH ARTICLE|JUNE 01, 2015Coral islands defy sea-level rise over the past century: Records from a central Pacific atollP.S. Kench D. Thompson M.R. Ford H. Ogawa R.F. McLeanGeology (2015) 43 (6): 515-518.https://doi.org/10.1130/G36555.1AbstractThe geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). There is no evidence of heightened erosion over the past half-century as sea-level rise accelerated. Reef islands in Funafuti continually adjust their size, shape, and position in response to variations in boundary conditions, including storms, sediment supply, as well as sea level. Results suggest a more optimistic prognosis for the habitability of atoll nations and demonstrate the importance of resolving recent rates and styles of island change to inform adaptation strategies.Evidence that Tuvalu is rising not sinking is the construction of a new airplane landing field. No climate refugees migrating from here!I have first hand experience on the issue of sea rise fears about Pacific Islands as I lived and worked on the Manihiki Atoll in the Northern Cook Islands in 1963 more than 50 years ago. Not only is there no evidence today of untoward sea rise the evidence is that this and mosts islands have expanding not sinking.Manihiki has a tiny land base and had no airport when I lived there. Today the sea and land are stable enough that the government built a air runway and offers plane service to Islanders.I am helping Polynesians make coral cement on Manihiki by burning palm logs constantly for several days.Manihiki CI air landing strip.Manihiki Tamarack for Air RarotongaA recent White Paper by a major French Society of Mathematics demolishes the ridiculous scaremongering by alarmists about sea rising and severe weather.Part 1: The factsChapter 1: The crusade is absurdThere is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way ̳disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes.We are being told that ̳a temperature increase of more than 2oC by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences, and absolutely has to be prevented‘. When they hear this, people worry: hasn‘t there already been an increase of 1.9oC? Actually, no: the figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1oC every hundred years! Of course, these figures, which contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention.Why is climate change causing problems for Kiribati?James Matkin, former Deputy Minister at Government of British Columbia (1974-1983)Updated just nowNot true. The great deception is the fear mongering about exaggerated sea level rise by the likes of alarmist Al Gore made without supporting science. The ghost of climate refugees from the Pacific Isles created public apprehension, notwithstanding it is false without evidence. This great lie about sea levels should be a warning to all that alarmists media are willing to fabricate false news in their effort to cover the pseudo-science of the global warming scare.Sadly the lies continue today in so called respected media like the Washington Post with this false headline.The WorldPostOpinionOur island is disappearing but the president refuses to actBy Anote Tong and Matthieu RytzOct. 24, 2018 at 12:21 p.m. PDThttps://www.washingtonpost.com/n...UNTRUE. I have first hand experience with this issue as I worked in Cook Islands and travelled to most of the 18 atolls, including Manihiki in the early 1960s and returned recently to see the fears of sinking islands are unfounded.Recent research confirms not only are the islands stable, but in fact they are growing.How does this fake news about Kiribati ‘disappearing’ published by the Washington Post happen?ANSWER:“The public, politicians, and the media are mostly scientific ignoramuses easily fooled into believing that fake science is rock-solid science. There is an alliance driven by the money-greed of the science mandarins and the socialist dreams of the political Left. It is not an accident that the many ecological catastrophes predicted by rogue science get political support from the Left.”SEE - https://principia-scientific.org...The Nation of Kiribati is Growing, Not SinkingFlickr/Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade/AusAID/Lorrie GrahamIn this Nov. 6, 2013, photo, a building is seen next to the coast in Tarawa, Kiribati.By JAMES AGRESTI Published on September 11, 2018 • 4 CommentsJames AgrestiJournalists are traveling to the Pacific island nation of Kiribati, because they believe that global warming is causing it to sink into the ocean, and it will soon be gone. However, the people of Kiribati are telling reporters this is not the case. A newsman has chalked this up to a “mental block” that makes the locals unwilling to face the truth. Yet, the facts of the matter prove that the people of Kiribati are correct, and the journalists are disconnected from reality.The nation of Kiribati is comprised almost entirely of coral reef islands. These are typically found in the Pacific Ocean and are primarily made of gravel, silt and sand that has accumulated on coral reefs. Because these islands are only slightly above sea level and are made of loosely bound sediments, they are considered to be among the most vulnerable places on Earth to rising sea levels.In a recent Washington Post feature entitled “The Sinking State,” Joshua Keating, a staff writer and editor at Slate, claims that “not that long from now” rising seas caused by global warming will “probably” destroy Kiribati. He also says:· it may be “one of the first” nations “wiped out by the effects of climate change.”· the entire nation could become little more than “a reinforced platform with a flag perched in the open ocean.”· its capital city of “Tarawa, where nearly half the country’s 110,000 residents live, could soon be substantially underwater.”To support these predictions, Keating quotes a 2015 report that the administration of Kiribati’s former president sent to the United Nations. It says that “within a century” the nation’s farmland “will be largely submerged, while other islands and atolls will … disappear altogether.” This report contains no citations or links to document these allegations. It also repeatedly mentions the financial resources that Kiribati wants from others to mitigate these catastrophes.Kiribati Has Actually GrownIn contrast to those claims, the authors of a 2010 paper in the journal Global and Planetary Change used aerial and satellite photographs to conduct “the first quantitative analysis of physical changes” in 27 central Pacific coral reef islands. This included those in Kiribati.The study examined four islands in Tarawa over periods of 31–65 years and found that:all four islands exhibited an increase in island area. Notably the three urbanized islands of Betio, Bairiki and Nanikai increased in area by 30, 16.3 and 12.5% respectively. Buariki in the north of the atoll exhibited an increase of 2%.The study also found that these circumstances are not unique to Kiribati, and among the 43 islands surveyed:· 43% remained stable.· 15% decreased in area, with changes ranging from 3% to 14%.· 43% increased in area, with changes ranging from 3% to 30%.In the words of the paper, the “results of this study contradict widespread perceptions that all reef islands are eroding in response to recent sea level rise.”Likewise, the authors of a 2013 paper in the journal Sustainability Science used aerial and satellite photographs to examine “changes in shoreline position on the majority of reef islands” in Tarawa from 1943 to 2007. They found that these islands “substantially increased in size” and:Despite the widely held perception that reef islands around the perimeter of coral atolls are eroding and will disappear as a consequence of sea-level rise resulting from global warming, this study shows that the total area of reef islands on Tarawa Atoll has increased over recent decades.The study determined that the vast majority of this increase was from human activities. For example, people have filled in marine areas with materials from nearby beaches and shore areas to create new land. Yet, even in rural areas where natural processes dominate, the study found that “most reef islands show stability” and have had “modest natural rates” of growth.The same paper notes that some individuals observe “evidence of erosion of reef islands” and “infer” that they “are threatened by sea-level rise” from global warming. “However,” as the authors explain, “these trends have often been shown to be cyclic” natural changes that have nothing to do with global warming.Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »Journalists and activists frequently point to short-term or local trends as proof that humans are causing harmful changes in the earth’s climate, but long-term, inclusive data often shows that these changes are well within the bounds of natural variation. Beyond coral reef islands, they have done this with diverse subjects like hurricanes, temperature changes, famines, rainfall, and ice conditions.Since long before humans began using fossil fuels, the earth and its climate have been changing. As stated in the college textbook Evolution of Sedimentary Rocks, “Every area of the continents has been at one time covered by the sea, and there are some places that show clear record of being submerged at least 20 separate times.”Global Versus Local TrendsData from tide gauges show that the average global sea level has been generally rising since 1860 or earlier. Since 1993, instruments on satellites have also shown a rise in the average global sea level.That does not mean that sea level has risen everywhere. The ocean’s vast waters are not evenly distributed like they are in small bodies like lakes. For instance, the sea level in the Indian Ocean is about 330 feet below the worldwide average, while the sea level in Ireland is about 200 feet above average. Even though all the oceans are connected, such variations are caused by gravity, winds, and currents.Also, the practical effects of these phenomena are dynamic. For example, between 1992 and 2010, sea level rose by about 6 inches in the tropical Western Pacific while falling by about the same amount in San Francisco.In other words, local sea level trends commonly differ from global ones. Hence, it is a mistake to assume that the average global trend applies to everywhere on earth.It is also a mistake to assume that a rise in the average global sea level translates to a net loss in coastal land. Per a 2016 study published in the journal Nature, the earth gained a net total of 5,000 square miles of coastal land area from 1985 to 2015.Mental BlocksNear the end of his piece, Keating frets that the citizens of Kiribati “seem no more troubled about the issue” of climate change “than people in the United States are.” Reporting on his visit to Kiribati and interviews with the locals, he writes:· “Most people I met weren’t making plans to relocate anytime soon.”· “Instead, I heard a lot of frustration that the rest of the world seems to take notice of the I-Kiribati only to tell them they’re doomed.”· “Several people I spoke with had already given interviews about climate change to foreign reporters. ‘In my case, you are the fifth person,’ remarked Teewata Aromata…. ‘People come and ask us the same questions. They see pictures of us and think we are drowning in the ocean.’ ”Instead of considering the possibility that these people are correct, Keating evaluates the situation and psychoanalyzes them as follows:Yet the stubborn facts remain. Countries like the Maldives and Kiribati are probably disappearing — and not that long from now. I came to Kiribati expecting to find a place planning for its own destruction, but instead I found something more dispiriting: a place that, with a few exceptions, wasn’t even contemplating that destruction. …The mental block that prohibits thinking about what will happen when the islands are no longer inhabitable seems to be a major impediment to planning for that eventuality. In this regard, too, Kiribati is a microcosm of the world’s unwillingness to face the reality of the future.This episode highlights the media’s propensity to embrace false narratives and look down their noses at others who don’t. Given the effects of media on the public and governments, this can waste enormous resources on fake problems, while diverting them from real ones.James D. Agresti is the president of Just Facts, a think tank dedicated to publishing rigorously documented facts about public policy issues.The Nation of Kiribati is Growing, Not Sinking | The Stream'Sinking' Pacific nation is getting bigger: studyMap showing Tuvalu in the Pacific.The Pacific nation of Tuvalu—long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels—is actually growing in size, new research shows.A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu's nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu's total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.Co-author Paul Kench said the research, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications, challenged the assumption that low-lying island nations would be swamped as the sea rose."We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise, but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing," he said."The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) sea level has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion."It found factors such as wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms could offset the erosion caused by rising water levels.The Auckland team says climate change remains one of the major threats to low-lying island nations.But it argues the study should prompt a rethink on how such countries respond to the problem.Rather than accepting their homes are doomed and looking to migrate to countries such as Australia and New Zealand, the researchers say they should start planning for a long-term future."On the basis of this research we project a markedly different trajectory for Tuvalu's islands over the next century than is commonly envisaged," Kench said."While we recognise that habitability rests on a number of factors, loss of land is unlikely to be a factor in forcing depopulation of Tuvalu."The study's authors said island nations needed to find creative solutions to adapt to climate change that take into account their homeland's evolving geography.Suggestions included moving populations onto larger islands and atolls, which have proved the most stable and likely to grow as seas rise."Embracing such new adaptation pathways will present considerable national scale challenges to planning, development goals and land tenure systems," they said."However, as the data on island change shows there is time (decades) to confront these challenges."https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pa...The false claims of human induced global warming are contradicted by evidence that temperatures are not rising more than natural and many glaciers are expanding particularly the largest at the Antarctica. NASA reluctantly publishes this research about Greenland.Major Greenland Glacier Is GrowingJune 6, 2019JPEGJakobshavn Glacier in western Greenland is notorious for being the world’s fastest-moving glacier. It is also one of the most active, discharging a tremendous amount of ice from the Greenland Ice Sheet into Ilulissat Icefjord and adjacent Disko Bay—with implications for sea level rise. The image above, acquired on June 6, 2019, by the Operational Land Imager (OLI) on Landsat 8, shows a natural-color view of the glacier.Jakobshavn has spent decades in retreat—that is, until scientists observed an unexpected advance between 2016 and 2017. In addition to growing toward the ocean, the glacier was found to be slowing and thickening. New data collected in March 2019 confirm that the glacier has grown for the third year in a row, and scientists attribute the change to cool ocean waters.“The third straight year of thickening of Greenland’s biggest glacier supports our conclusion that the ocean is the culprit,” said Josh Willis, an ocean scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and principal investigator of the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission.https://www.quora.com/Why-is-climate-change-causing-problems-for-Kiribati/answer/James-Matkin?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=5849308614&comment_id=117871984&comment_type=2Remember we are in an Ice age today.Imagine this made up dialogue about global warming and sea levelsSTUDENT: “I heard that the earth is in an ice age today. How can that be possible?”PROFESSOR: “Yes the current ice age is named the ‘Quaternary’ underway for the past 2.5 million years. We do not how but history shows climate swings in long cycles over millions of years between a HOT BOX or an ICE BOX. The key definition of an ice age is when polar ice does not melt over summer because of too much ice. During the ice age there are two periods the interglacial warming and glacial cooling. We are enjoying the benefits these days of the interglacial warming called the Holocene, but temperatures are in decline over the past 6000 years.”STUDENT: “I don’t understand why UN and other alarmists are concerned about melting glaciers from global warming? Wouldn’t this warming end the ice age and make life much less dangerous from harsh winters?PROFESSOR: “Yes, melting glaciers are a positive sign that the warmer interglacial is extant and we are not falling back into devastating glaciation. If there really was global warming and if the polar glaciers were indeed melting this would be fantastic news. The alarmist accept warming is positive as long as it does no happen too fast and of course since there is a pause in warming the pause debunks any idea of run away global warming.STUDENT: “But what happens after the ice age ends is the climate positive for us and plants and animals?”PROFESSOR: “YES. After the ice age the evidence of the past confirms the rise in temperatures creates a tropical climate and is a great boon to plants and animals. Remember the Jurassic Age when the dinosaurs roomed Antarctica and Alberta eating palm leaves. Recent geological drilling under Antarctica suggests the polar region has seen global warming before.Bob StraussUpdated October 29, 2019Dinosaurs lived over 180 million-year span that ranged from the Triassic Period when all continents were joined as a single landmass known as Pangea beginning 250 million years ago through the Cretaceous Period ending 66 million years ago.The Earth looked a lot different during the Mesozoic Era, from 250 million to 65 million years ago. Although the layout of the oceans and continents may be unfamiliar to modern eyes, not so the habitats in which dinosaurs and other animals lived. Here's a list of the 10 most common ecosystems inhabited by dinosaurs, ranging from dry, dusty deserts to lush, green equatorial jungles.01of 10PlainsPhoto by Supoj Buranaprapapong / Getty ImagesThe vast, windswept plains of the Cretaceous period were very similar to those of today, with one major exception: 100 million years ago, grass had yet to evolve, so these ecosystems were instead covered with ferns and other prehistoric plants. These flatlands were traversed by herds of plant-eating dinosaurs (including ceratopsians, hadrosaurs, and ornithopods), interspersed with a healthy assortment of hungry raptors and tyrannosaurs that kept these dimwitted herbivores on their toes.02of 10WetlandsCorbis via Getty Images / Getty ImagesWetlands are soggy, low-lying plains that have been flooded with sediments from nearby hills and mountains. Paleontologically speaking, the most important wetlands were the ones that covered much of modern Europe during the early Cretaceous period, yielding numerous specimens of Iguanodon, Polacanthus and the tiny Hypsilophodon. These dinosaurs fed not on grass (which had yet to evolve) but more primitive plants known as horsetails.03of 10Riparian ForestsSteve Waters / Getty ImagesA riparian forest consists of lush trees and vegetation growing alongside a river or marsh; this habitat provides ample food for its denizens but is also prone to periodic flooding. The most famous riparian forest of the Mesozoic Era was in the Morrison Formation of late Jurassic North America—a rich fossil bed that has yielded numerous specimens of sauropods, ornithopods, and theropods, including the giant Diplodocus and the fierce Allosaurus.04of 10Swamp ForestsBrian W. Downs / Getty ImagesSwamp forests are very similar to riparian forests, with one important exception: The swamp forests of the late Cretaceous period were matted with flowers and other late-evolving plants, providing an important source of nutrition for huge herds of duck-billed dinosaurs. In turn, these "cows of the Cretaceous" were preyed on by smarter, more agile theropods, ranging from Troodon to Tyrannosaurus Rex.05of 10Desertsjanetteasche / Getty ImagesDeserts present a harsh ecological challenge to all forms of life, and dinosaurs were no exception. The most famous desert of the Mesozoic Era, the Gobi of central Asia, was inhabited by three very familiar dinosaurs—Protoceratops, Oviraptor, ​and Velociraptor. In fact, the entwined fossils of a Protoceratops locked in combat with a Velociraptor were preserved by a sudden, violent sandstorm one unlucky day during the late Cretaceous period. The world's largest desert—the Sahara—was a lush jungle during the age of the dinosaurs.06of 10LagoonsAbdul Azis / Getty ImagesLagoons—large bodies of calm, tepid water trapped behind reefs—weren't necessarily more common in the Mesozoic Era than they are today, but they tend to be overrepresented in the fossil record (because dead organisms that sink to the bottom of lagoons are easily preserved in silt.) The most famous prehistoric lagoons were located in Europe. For example, Solnhofen in Germany has yielded numerous specimens of Archaeopteryx, Compsognathus, and assorted pterosaurs.07of 10Polar RegionsAndrew Peacock / Getty ImagesDuring the Mesozoic Era, the North and South Poles weren't nearly as cold as they are today—but they were still plunged in darkness for a significant portion of the year. That explains the discovery of Australian dinosaurs like the tiny, big-eyed Leaellynasaura, as well as the unusually small-brained Minmi, a presumably cold-blooded ankylosaur that couldn't fuel its metabolism with the same abundance of sunlight as its relatives in more temperate regions.08of 10Rivers and LakesMartin Steinthaler / Getty ImagesAlthough most dinosaurs didn't actually live in rivers and lakes—that was the prerogative of marine reptiles—they did prowl around the edges of these bodies, sometimes with startling results, evolutionwise. For example, some of the biggest theropod dinosaurs of South America and Eurasia—including Baryonyx and Suchomimus—fed primarily on fish, to judge by their long, crocodile-like snouts. And we now have compelling evidence that Spinosaurus was, in fact, a semiaquatic or even fully aquatic dinosaur.09of 10Islandsby JBfotoblog / Getty ImagesThe world's continents may have been arranged differently 100 million years ago than they are today, but their lakes and shorelines were still studded with tiny islands. The most famous example is Hatzeg Island (located in present-day Romania), which has yielded the remains of the dwarf titanosaur Magyarosaurus, the primitive ornithopod Telmatosaurus, and the giant pterosaur Hatzegopteryx. Clearly, millions of years of confinement on island habitats have a pronounced effect on reptile body plans.10of 10ShorelinesPeter Unger / Getty ImagesLike modern humans, dinosaurs enjoyed spending time by the shore—but the shorelines of the Mesozoic Era were located in some very odd places. For example, preserved footprints hint at the existence of a vast, north-south dinosaur migration route along the western edge of the Western Interior Sea, which ran through Colorado and New Mexico (rather than California) during the Cretaceous period. Carnivores and herbivores alike traversed this well-worn path, doubtless in pursuit of scarce food.Where Did Dinosaurs Live?See also this Guardian article, When Antarctica was a tropical paradise by Robin McKie Sun 17 Jul 2011 00.04 BST with a good intro to the past but an incoherent conclusion.An impression of a tropical Antarctica as it may have appeared 100 million years ago. Image: Robert Nicholls/Antarctica is the coldest, most desolate place on Earth, a land of barren mountains buried beneath a two-mile thick ice cap. Freezing winds batter its shores while week-long blizzards frequently sweep its glaciers.Yet this icy vision turns out to be exceptional. For most of the past 100 million years, the south pole was a tropical paradise, it transpires."It was a green beautiful place," said Prof Jane Francis, of Leeds University's School of Earth and Environment. "Lots of furry mammals including possums and beavers lived there. The weather was tropical. It is only in the recent geological past that it got so cold."Renewables in Retreat? Ohio Democrats Vote to Support Nuclear and Coal Power.WE ARE A TROPICAL SPECIETropical nations are expected to hold 50% of the world’s population by 2050, up from 40% now.©IEMBICKI/:Expanding tropics will play greater global role, report predictsBy Allie WilkinsonJun. 29, 2014 , 8:30 AM“By 2050, half of the world’s population will reside in the tropics—the relatively warm belt that girdles the globe—according to State of the Tropics, a hefty report released today. Rapid population growth, coupled with economic growth, means that the region’s influence will grow in coming decades, the authors of the 500-page tome predict. At the same time, tropical conditions are expanding poleward as a result of climate change, but at a slower rate than previously believed.“The tropical population is expected to exceed that of the rest of the world in the late 2030s, confirming just how crucial the Tropics are to the world’s future,” said Sandra Harding, project convener and vice chancellor of Australia’s James Cook University, in a statement. “We must rethink the world’s priorities on aid, development, research and education.”The result of a 3-year collaboration between 12 prominent tropical research institutions, State of the Tropics grew out of an effort to acknowledge the region as an environmental and geopolitical entity in its own right. Geographers define the tropics as the belt that is centered on Earth’s equator, between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn (each 23.5° of latitude off the equator). Although tropical regions vary considerably, they are “typically warm and experience little seasonal change in daily temperatures.” These geographic and environmental commonalities play a key part of shaping human societies in the region, which is currently home to about 40% of the world’s population, the authors add.”Expanding tropics will play greater global role, report predicts“Southern Great Barrier Reef island shows signs of coral recovery after Cyclone HamishABC COFFS COAST MELISSA MARTIN AND ERIN SEMMLERUPDATEDTUE 2 JUL 2019, 6:32 AM AESTEmail Facebook Twitter WhatsAppPHOTOSouthern Cross University doctoral researcher, Kay Davis, found coral at One Tree Island has experienced growth.SUPPLIED: KAY DAVISAt a time when portions of the Great Barrier Reef are being devastated by coral decline, Southern Cross University doctoral researcher Kay Davis has found an island near Gladstone has experienced remarkable coral growth.Key pointsCoral system calcification at One Tree Island increased by 400 per cent between 2014 and 2017, according to new researchThe findings indicate a complete recovery from devastation wreaked by Cyclone Hamish in 2009Researchers say it gives them hope about the future of the rest of the Great Barrier Reef and the ability of coral to recover from bleaching eventsOne Tree Island was lashed by Cyclone Hamish in 2009, destroying much of the island's coral.In the five years following the cyclone, no metabolic recovery was detected on the reef and by 2014 calcification of the coral had declined by 75 per cent.But things changed dramatically between 2014 and 2017, when Ms Davis and her team at the National Marine Science Centre found the coral system calcification increased four-fold."We found that the coral ecosystem has completely recovered from this cyclone event after eight years," Ms Davis said."It wasn't what we were expecting at all."The new research was published this month in Frontiers in Marine Science open-source journal with Ms Davis as the lead author.Ms Davis had expected the declining health of the reef to continue due to ocean acidification inhibiting coral recovery.Instead the coral is doing better now than it was when it was first studied in the 1970s."Not only is calcification of the reef recovering, there was a visible increase in the amount of coral as well; with coral cover increasing by 30 to 40 per cent."PHOTO This coral reef at One Tree Island, near Gladstone, has shown growth of 400 per cent between 2014 and 2017, after it was devastated by Cyclone Hamish in 2009.SUPPLIED: KAY DAVIS'It's teeming with life here'Located just north of One Tree Island, Heron Island is a small coral cay that thrives off reef tourism.Marine biologist Rachael Jones has been the resident naturalist guide on the island for more than three years."We haven't had any significant bleaching or coral disease because we're on the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef," she said."I just keep seeing diversity of life here everyday because we're a green zone — you can't fish, you can't take anything, everything's protected by law."That's when you see ecosystems thrive."Ms Jones interacts with tourists from around the world and hosts guided reef walks, semi-submersible reef tours, island and bird walks.She said tourists are more worried about the reef than previously because of the way it is portrayed in the media."Questions I get asked everyday, they say, 'so is the reef dead? Is this bleached here?'" she said."Some parts are stressed due to the double-bleaching event [in 2016-17] but the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef, it's just thriving, teeming with life."Southern Great Barrier Reef island shows signs of coral recovery after Cyclone HamishA thriving coral reef. Photo by Francesco Ungaro. Licensed from pexels.comView this page in a printable PDF here:Climate-at-a-glance-Coral-reefsDownloadBullet Point Summary:·Coral thrive in warm water, not cold water.·Recent warming has allowed coral to expand their range poleward, while still thriving near the equator.·Coral has existed continuously for the past 40 million years, surviving temperatures and carbon dioxide levels significantly higher than what is occurring today.·The primary causes of coral bleaching include oxybenzone (a chemical found in sunscreen), sediment runoff from nearby coastal lands, and cold temperatures like those recorded in 2010 off the Florida coast.··Short Summary: Coral require warm water, not cold water, to live. Coral cannot live outside of tropical or subtropical waters. (See Figure 1.) As Earth continues to modestly warm, coral are extending their range toward the poles while still thriving at and near the equator. The primary reasons for bleaching events include sediment pollution from nearby coastal lands, chemicals found in sunscreen, and cold temperature events. Coral have existed continuously for the past 40 million years. Coral survived and thrived when temperatures were significantly warmer than they are today.Temperature Swings: Short-term strong heatwaves or cold snaps can cause bleaching events, but such events have occurred long before recent warming. Moreover, studies show coral can and do adapt to the gradual long-term pace of global warming. History shows that cold snaps can harm coral much worse than warm spells. In 2010, colder ocean temperatures off the coast of Florida killed more coral than any warm-water event, killing more than 40 percent of reef-building corals.A poster child for coral alarmism is the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef is 20 million years old, and it has survived significantly warmer temperatures than today. Although the Australian Institute of Marine Science documented that approximately 22 percent of the reef experienced recent bleaching (not 93 percent, as reported in alarmist media stories), 75 percent of the bleached portion of the Reef is expected to make a full recovery. Poor water quality resulting from nearby coastal development is the main culprit for bleached reef areas that do not recover. Evidence shows much of the bleached coral in the Great Barrier Reef are recovering.Figure 1: Coral Reef LocationsCoral continue to require warm water and thrive in the warmest of Earth’s waters.Source: NOAA Ocean Service Education, https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/media/supp_coral05a.htmlQuote from the source:“The majority of reef building corals are found within tropical and subtropical waters. These typically occur between 300 north and 300 south latitudes. The red dots on this map show the location of major stony coral reefs of the world.”https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/media/supp_coral05a.htmlClimate At A Glance is a Project of The Heartland Institute